Official/Final 2020 Rookie RB Ranks

[Cult of Dionysus]

A guy by the name Marcus Allen played QB and safety in high school and if I'm not mistaken, and I could be very wrong here, turned out to have a somewhat respectable career as a RB at some school in California before bouncing around the AFC West for a few years.

[Cult of Dionysus]

Let's just say that had Akers and Dobbins switched college teams, MeuRah wouldn't spend a 3rd on Dobbins...

You're making a wild assumption and then judging me on it. Shame on you.

It is interesting that the 2RBs he has far below consensus both had by far the worst O-lines of the 6 RBs drafted

I had Devin Singletary rated as the #4 back last year and a "must draft" player according to my ranks. Devin played his ball at Florida Atlantic. How good of an offensive line could they possibly have had? I remember Singletary's highlights pretty vividly. His line play was trash and he had to make something out of nothing and he did so repeatedly. I was in awe.

While a great offensive line can help a bad RB improve, I'm also a believer that a good RB can make a bad offensive line better. Akers was a converted quarterback out of high school who never learned the finer points as a youth, which was obvious to me on tape. The offensive line has no bearing on his run skills.

His open field running looks great, but honestly that's a dime a dozen. Most good RB carries in the NFL are 3 yard runs. That might sound silly but it's true. Everyone focuses on break away speed and dazzling plays, but the backs who can consistently get 3 yards when a block is missed or 3 yards when the defense sends a run blitz are the elite backs in the NFL. These yards come at the LOS in close quarters with the defense. They are found in the smallest of holes through cut back lanes or assigned schemes that last for a fraction of a second. Akers has not displayed he's capable creating space when plays break down. His highlights reel runs are filled with plays that are well executed, not busted plays where he turned something out of nothing. And considering how bad his line was, that should have been found all over the place.

(Edit: I went back and watched 10-12 minutes of runs. He had one good "busted" play, and it wasn't even him creating space it was reversing fields. If he had a bad offensive line, there should have been several more of that.)

Right now Zeke is the best running back in the NFL. He's not the best fantasy back and he's not the best overall back, but he's the best at making something out of nothing and finding small holes to give his offense 2nd and 7 over and over again. That's why Dallas had the number one offense last year. Zeke is freaking amazing. I'm constantly in awe of his athletic ability and vision.

Akers has only been a back for 3 years, and now finds himself on a team that's so good at finding RB talent they drafted Darrell Henderson last year. I have zero faith in the Rams. If they want to run more of a spread offense then Akers will be better suited for that role and I would raise his value to a 2nd for sure. I have zero info on that but that would be his best bet. If that happens I'll adjust accordingly. But until then, I want no part of him.

I really disagree with the argument that Akers doesn't "make something out of nothing."

Rewatched 2 games just to makes some gifs:

https://gph.is/g/aKAbBy3

https://gph.is/g/apQBe7v

https://gph.is/g/aXWeO9O

https://gph.is/g/4LWMqyp

https://gph.is/g/EqXzbon

https://gph.is/g/ZlRrOeL

Using Devin Singletary as the barometer for making guys miss is kinda silly - Singletary is a unicorn in that regard.

Regarding the ability to get tough yards, Akers absolutely has that. Maybe he doesn't do it in the flashy way of someone like Singletary and CEH (again, very rare an an unfair barometer to use) but Akers' toughness and explosion turn 2 yard gains for other backs into 4 or 5 yard gains for him.

In all fairness to Mike, none of those Gifs were impressive. CEH shows better moves when he comes out of the locker room.

[dustyroads]

A guy by the name Marcus Allen played QB and safety in high school and if I'm not mistaken, and I could be very wrong here, turned out to have a somewhat respectable career as a RB at some school in California before bouncing around the AFC West for a few years.

There are a ton of players who converted positions and were hugely successful, a lot of whom who converted much later than Akers and made the transitions late in college, if not after they were drafted into the NFL. But seemed like a pointless task to argue with someone who's evaluations of players almost completely through their own eyes and self-acknowledged "experience", and so completely dismissive of statistics and actual quantifiable/non-biased data. I had a list of about 15 Probowl and HoF players who converted positions late in their so-called development, but already foresaw Mike's response moving the goal posts to say this "malleable brain" concept only applied specifically to QBs who converted to RB, as though the other positions don't require as much, if not more, skill to master. I think most would argue RB is more strongly influenced by natural abilities and gifts rather than the learned/taught ones like other positions; not to mention the most mental position on the field is QB and they tend to need to understand all offensive positions to some extenet, so a QB convert would have even more likelihood to succeed when converting. But I stopped myself realizing logic and reason has no place on these boards lol.

[murphysxm]

All this Akers talk is exhausting. There is no way he is going to get carries over Darrell Henderson. Dude should have been 1.01 last year..................

[MEuRaH]

In all fairness to Mike, none of those Gifs were impressive. CEH shows better moves when he comes out of the locker room.

lol.

But I humbly disagree. They were impressive, each for different reasons, and all of them display different traits a RB can possess to be successful. I just don't focus on the good unless that's all I can find. I try to hate on a RB as much as possible. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I could show great runs and highlights of nearly any rookie RB, even the undrafted ones, and therefore fall in love with them on draft day if all I focus on is the good.

[OhCruelestRanter]

In all fairness to Mike, none of those Gifs were impressive. CEH shows better moves when he comes out of the locker room.

lol.

But I humbly disagree. They were impressive, each for different reasons, and all of them display different traits a RB can possess to be successful. I just don't focus on the good unless that's all I can find. I try to hate on a RB as much as possible. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I could show great runs and highlights of nearly any rookie RB, even the undrafted ones, and therefore fall in love with them on draft day if all I focus on is the good.

I think that this process is bad, and that it explains why you miss on guys with extraordinary size/athleticism with correctable flaws (Henry, Chubb, Taylor) in favor of guys who are sub-par to average athletes who are more polished (Dixon, Michel, Kerryon, Swift).

[bjd5211]

In all fairness to Mike, none of those Gifs were impressive. CEH shows better moves when he comes out of the locker room.

lol.

But I humbly disagree. They were impressive, each for different reasons, and all of them display different traits a RB can possess to be successful. I just don't focus on the good unless that's all I can find. I try to hate on a RB as much as possible. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I could show great runs and highlights of nearly any rookie RB, even the undrafted ones, and therefore fall in love with them on draft day if all I focus on is the good.

I think that this process is bad, and that it explains why you miss on guys with extraordinary size/athleticism with correctable flaws (Henry, Chubb, Taylor) in favor of guys who are sub-par to average athletes who are more polished (Dixon, Michel, Kerryon, Swift).

And explains his "Akers isn't worth the risk at more than a 3rd round pick" take.

[ascherb]

In all fairness to Mike, none of those Gifs were impressive. CEH shows better moves when he comes out of the locker room.

lol.

But I humbly disagree. They were impressive, each for different reasons, and all of them display different traits a RB can possess to be successful. I just don't focus on the good unless that's all I can find. I try to hate on a RB as much as possible. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I could show great runs and highlights of nearly any rookie RB, even the undrafted ones, and therefore fall in love with them on draft day if all I focus on is the good.

I think that this process is bad, and that it explains why you miss on guys with extraordinary size/athleticism with correctable flaws (Henry, Chubb, Taylor) in favor of guys who are sub-par to average athletes who are more polished (Dixon, Michel, Kerryon, Swift).

Completely agree.

It's fine to make rankings, and have different opinions than the consensus. No problem with that.

I just don't know about the round value attachment. Even if I hated everything about Vaughn or Akers, there's no way you would refuse to draft those players before the round that was attached. If Akers fell to you at 1.12, there's just no way you'd pass.

[Chwf3rd]

In all fairness to Mike, none of those Gifs were impressive. CEH shows better moves when he comes out of the locker room.

lol.

But I humbly disagree. They were impressive, each for different reasons, and all of them display different traits a RB can possess to be successful. I just don't focus on the good unless that's all I can find. I try to hate on a RB as much as possible. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I could show great runs and highlights of nearly any rookie RB, even the undrafted ones, and therefore fall in love with them on draft day if all I focus on is the good.

I think that this process is bad, and that it explains why you miss on guys with extraordinary size/athleticism with correctable flaws (Henry, Chubb, Taylor) in favor of guys who are sub-par to average athletes who are more polished (Dixon, Michel, Kerryon, Swift).

I think Mikeh gets too far into the weeds - e.g., significantly downgrading a player for not switching which hand he carries the ball in.

Big, fast, explosive, and violent people do well in the NFL. These kids are 20, 21 years old and we shouldn't act like they're done growing as players.

I LOVED Devin Singletary coming out and he was one of my favorite players to watch of all time. He's done well and is going to continue to do well but the physical limitations are real and matter.

While Singletary and CEH may make 2 guys miss going from Point A to Point B - someone like Cam Akers can get there just as fast via explosion and violence.

[MEuRaH]

I don't think looking for flaws in someone's game is a bad thing. I'm shocked that's being criticized. There's so many positive things to find in someone's game at the D1 college level that if you don't concentrate and look for negatives then you'll never find them. I'm blown away that 4 people in a row appear to disagree.

I don't think you're being entirely fair, either. My official take on Akers per the article is that he has tremendous size and speed, and his blocking and receiving skills is on par with the top tier of rookie RBs. He's very smart and has the ability to be a top back in this class.

His talent was a reason why he had so many highlight worthy plays, and is another reason why he shines above so many other RBs at the college level. Chwf3rd in the gifs you chose, he made plays using basically his talent alone. No RB coach will ever teach what he did to avoid the tackler in that first gif you posted. Those unteachable aspects of his game are desirable.

It's awesome that he has such ability, and that combined with his size, speed, blocking and pass-catching ability is why he was taken so high, but it's not something useful at the NFL level if he doesn't have sound fundamental skills. For example, I didn't see Akers find a single cutback lane in any of his runs. That's a basic skill that I found in every back taken in the top 3 rounds, except for Akers, JT, and Vaughn.

His combine, based on his tape, should also have been amazing and it wasn't. His 40 time was impressive, but the rest was either average or below the target score for RBs. 35.5 vertical when a 36 should be the minimum. 10'02" broad just barely over minimum. 4.42 shuttle when 4.20 is the target score... yikes. And then when he was asked to do the 3-cone, he declined. I don't put a ton of stock into the combine, but why refuse to do a drill?... unless you think it'll hurt you more than help? I didn't see a ton of change-of-direction ability in his game, and his poor shuttle time and refusal of a 3-cone confirms for me that it's going to be an issue going forward.

I don't like the red flags and I don't like the work he would need to put in. I'm not calling him a bust. This is a deep class and I just think there are better or safer picks to be found elsewhere. The ranking is a risk-aversion ranking.

[OhCruelestRanter]

I don't think looking for flaws in someone's game is a bad thing. I'm shocked that's being criticized. There's so many positive things to find in someone's game at the D1 college level that if you don't concentrate and look for negatives then you'll never find them. I'm blown away that 4 people in a row seem to disagree.

This is a strawman. You're not being criticized for "looking for flaws in someone's game." Don't misrepresent criticism of your work. You're being criticized for focusing on those (often correctable) flaws way too much and ignoring things that matter. Everybody seems to agree because it's really evident, AND it explains why you seem to consistently undervalue guys with fantastic athleticism (Chubb, Henry) and over-value guys with average athleticism who are more polished (Michel, Kerryon, Dixon). Your process is fundamentally flawed in this way. I would honestly just start over from scratch.

I don't think you're being entirely fair, either. My official take on Akers per the article is that he has tremendous size and speed., and his blocking and receiving skills is on par with the top tier in the class. He's very smart and has the ability to be a top back in this class.

You literally called him a third-rounder, which is something that will never happen, so you're effectively calling him undraftable. Again, this is the same thing you did with Taylor- You list all these reasons that he might succeed, and then you say "I'm not drafting him." It all seems like a reaction to the overwhelming criticism you faced over your previous work- like you're trying to hedge on everybody so you can't be called out.

His talent was a reason why he had so many highlight worthy plays. Chwf3rd in the gifs you chose, he made plays using basically his talent alone. No RB coach will ever teach what he did to avoid the tackler in that first gif you posted, for example. That's awesome that he has such ability, and that combined with his size, speed, blocking and pass-catching ability is why he was taken so high, but it's not something useful at the NFL level if he doesn't have sound fundamental skills. For example, I didn't see Akers find a single cutback lane in any of his runs. That's a basic skill that I found in every back taken in the top 3 rounds, except for Akers, JT, and Vaughn.

His combine, based on his tape, should also have been amazing and it wasn't. His 40 time was impressive, but the rest was either average or below the target score for RBs. 35.5 vertical when a 36 should be the minimum. 10'02" broad just barely over minimum. 4.42 shuttle when 4.20 is the target score... yikes. And then when he was asked to do the 3-cone, which measures agility and change of direction, he declined. This was the one test I wanted to see him perform and he chose not to run it.

I don't like the red flags and I don't like the work he would need to put in. I'm not calling him a bust. This is a deep class and I just think there are better or safer picks to be found elsewhere. The ranking is a risk-aversion ranking.

You listed all these combine drills, but do you know whether or not they matter? The vertical leap, the broad jump, and the shuttle are all useless for projecting RB fantasy points or RB NFL success. There's no correlation. They're just not relevant, and mentioning them injures your credibility further.

Lastly, the whole risk-aversion thing that you keep using with first round running backs reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of risk as it pertains to rookies. Rookie running backs are just less risky, and less likely to lose value from year 1 to year 2, than rookie WRs. Sure, Akers might be the most risky of the top 5 guys, but saying that he's so risky that you're going to take him behind a minimum of 24 other rookies, many of whom are wide receivers, just doesn't fit. If a second round rookie draft WR doesn't do much in their first season, their value is vaporized- see JJAW or Isabella. Even if Akers went full RoJo, a true worst-case-scenario, he'd still have an ADP 5-6 round before any 2nd round rookie draft WR that busts. Calling a RB risky and saying you should instead draft WRs, who are inherently more risky, misses the point.

[MEuRaH]

You're being criticized for focusing on those (often correctable) flaws way too much

I don't know how you can measure "way too much". The rest of your reply, which is lengthy but repetitive or in some cases completely misses the mark on what I was trying to say, can be summarized quickly:

Focusing on the bad is the reason I haven't drafted a bust at RB in what seems like forever. I don't care about nailing the good/best players, I care about avoiding the risky ones. If there are 7 RBs and I recommend to stay away from 3 of them, and I'm wrong about 2 of the 3, I don't care as long as I'm right about the other 4. You wanna poke holes where I'm too low on a player? I'm fine with that. However, I would be devastated if I recommended everyone to draft a RB that turned out to be a bust.

[OhCruelestRanter]

Focusing on the bad is the reason I haven't drafted a bust at RB in what seems like forever.

Except for touting Michel, Kerryon, Kalen Ballage, and Kenneth Dixon... sure?

I don't care about nailing the good/best players,

Don't worry, this was evident from your results.

I care about avoiding the risky ones. If there are 7 RBs and I recommend to stay away from 3 of them, and I'm wrong about 2 of the 3, I don't care as long as I'm right about the other 4. You wanna poke holes where I'm too low on a player? I'm fine with that. However, I would be devastated if I recommended everyone to draft a RB that turned out to be a bust.

That's great, but when you say things like you would only recommend drafting Akers in the 3rd round, you're inherently recommending that somebody draft a more risky WR.

Anyways, honest feedback: Reading this, it seems like part of your problem is that what you want to do is identify busts, but instead you're giving rankings and projections, and that requires so much more thought than just "which of these guys will bust." Maybe next year instead of rankings, you should just try reviewing each RB at their ADP, and giving your comments on how risky you think they are and why. That might be better suited to the relatively profound limitations of your current process.

[MEuRaH]

I don't mind criticism, but we seem to be going back 4-5 years to substantiate what should be a difference of opinion.

[OhCruelestRanter]

I don't mind criticism

I disagree with a lot of what you write, but to me, this is the most demonstrably untrue statement that you’ve put forth here.

but we seem to be going back 4-5 years to substantiate what should be a difference of opinion.

We went back 4 to 5 years because you said this to defend your work:

I haven't drafted a bust at RB in what seems like forever.

If you’re going to use your “track record” to defend your position, it’s reasonable for that track record to be called into question.

In any case, I think the point stands that your process isn’t really suited for producing rankings or player values, and that seems to be the growing consensus. Doesn’t mean it’s bad, it’s just not robust enough for what you’re trying to do.